Alphabeta Math
TheoremStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedPipeline-generatedprecheck passjudge pass (gpt-6-luna)
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

Asymptotic linearity and normality of a regular MLE

Statement

Assume the Axiom of Choice. Let X1,X2,… be iid with law Pθ0 in a dominated parametric model {Pθ:θ∈Θ}, where Θ is open in Rd, d≥1, and θ0∈Θ. Let pθ be densities with respect to one supplied sigma-finite measure. Suppose the model is QMD at θ0 with score sθ0 and positive-definite information I=Eθ0[sθ0sθ0T]. Assume there are a neighborhood V of θ0 and a nonnegative measurable L with Eθ0L2<∞ such that, on one Pθ0-full set,

∣log⁡pθ1(x)−log⁡pθ2(x)∣≤L(x)∥θ1−θ2∥(θ1,θ2∈V).

Suppose a measurable exact MLE θ^n exists and is consistent, in the sense that Pθ0(∥θ^n−θ0∥>ε)→0 for every ε>0. Then n(θ^n−θ0)=I−11n∑i=1nsθ0(Xi)+oPθ0(1) ⇒ Nd(0,I−1). Under the same local hypotheses, every consistent measurable exact likelihood maximizer over a possibly n-dependent subset that contains θ0 is also root-n bounded in probability. The conclusion is asymptotic; it gives no exact finite-sample normal law.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: The iid dominated model, QMD score and information, local envelope, consistent measurable exact MLE, and Axiom of Choice in the statement.

[F1]

Parametric statistical models: a parametric model is the supplied map θ↦Pθ on an experiment.

[F2]

Dominated statistical experiments: domination means every Pθ is absolutely continuous with respect to one supplied sigma-finite measure.

[F3]

Quadratic-mean differentiability at a parameter: QMD means the square-root densities have the stated L2(μ) first-order expansion with score sθ0.

[F4]

Stochastic order and convergence notation for finite-dimensional random vectors: oP(1) is convergence in probability to zero, and OP(1) is boundedness in probability in finite-dimensional Euclidean norm.

[F5]

Finite-dimensional stochastic-order calculus and tightness: finite-dimensional convergence in distribution implies boundedness in probability; products of a vanishing factor and a bounded factor vanish in probability.

[F6]

Vector Slutsky theorem: if Yn−c=oP(1) and Xn⇒X, then (Xn,Yn)⇒(X,c), with continuous maps preserving this limit.

[F7]

Multivariate iid central limit theorem: under AC, iid finite-second-moment vectors satisfy the multivariate CLT, including singular covariance.

[F8]

Multivariate normal law, including singular covariance: under AC, Nd(m,Σ) exists for each finite-dimensional symmetric positive-semidefinite covariance Σ.

[F9]

Cauchy-Schwarz inequality for L2: for square-integrable g,h, E0∣gh∣≤(E0g2)1/2(E0h2)1/2.

[F10]

Dominated convergence: pointwise almost-everywhere convergence under an integrable dominating function permits passing limits through the integral.

[F11]

Chebyshev-Markov inequality for the integral: for measurable Y≥0 and a>0, P0(Y≥a)≤E0Y/a.

[F12]

A finite-dimensional QMD score has mean zero: the score of a finite-dimensional parametric QMD model at an interior point has mean zero under that point's law.

[A1]

The Axiom of Choice: AC is assumed for the multivariate CLT and Gaussian-law suppliers [F7]–[F8].

[A2]

The score and information are those in [F3]; I is positive definite.

[A3]

The local log-density envelope and consistency/MLE hypotheses are as in the Statement.

Proof

1.1A2F1F2F3F9F12algebra

Write P0=Pθ0, S0={pθ0>0}, and rt=pθ0+t−pθ0−12tTsθ0pθ0. By [F3], ∥rt∥L2(μ)=o(∥t∥), and [F12] gives E0sθ0=0. On S0c both pθ0 and sθ0pθ0 vanish, so the probability mass αt=∫S0cpθ0+t dμ is o(∥t∥2). Expanding the QMD approximation in [F3] and applying [F9] to its cross term gives ∥pθ0+t−pθ0∥22=14tTIt+o(∥t∥2).

2.1A2A3F2F3F9F10step 1.1algebra

Normalize the absolutely continuous part on S0 by qt=pθ0+t1S0/(1−αt), and put at=qt/pθ0−1 on S0. Since αt=o(∥t∥2), [F3] gives at=12tTsθ0+oL2(P0)(∥t∥), so E0at2=14tTIt+o(∥t∥2) and 2E0at+E0at2=0 from E0(1+at)2=1. The local envelope makes ft=log⁡(pθ0+t/pθ0) square-integrable on S0 and ∥ft∥2=O(∥t∥). Along every sequence t→0 with t/∥t∥→u, the L2 convergence of at/∥t∥ has an almost-everywhere convergent subsequence. On it, 2log⁡(1+at)/∥t∥→uTsθ0 pointwise. Since ∣ft∣/∥t∥≤L and sθ0∈L2(P0), ∣ft/∥t∥−uTsθ0∣2≤2L2+2∥sθ0∥2; dominated convergence [F10] gives convergence in L2 along that subsequence. Every subsequence has such a subsubsequence, so convergence holds for the full sequence. Sequential compactness of the unit sphere therefore yields ft=tTsθ0+oL2(P0)(∥t∥). Moreover, the squares at2/∥t∥2 are uniformly integrable because at/∥t∥ converges in L2 along every convergent direction. Taking the logarithm expansion in expectation requires a tail check. Fix ε>0. On ∣at∣≤ε, the Taylor remainder 2log⁡(1+at)−2at+at2 is bounded by ω(ε)at2, where ω(ε)→0. Uniform integrability gives E0[at21∣at∣>ε]=o(∥t∥2) and therefore P0(∣at∣>ε)=o(∥t∥2). On this tail, ∣2log⁡(1+at)∣≤∣ft∣+∣log⁡(1−αt)∣; its expectation is o(∥t∥2) by the envelope, Cauchy–Schwarz [F9], and the tail probability. The tail expectations of ∣at∣ and at2 are also o(∥t∥2) by [F9] and uniform integrability. Letting ε↓0 proves that the expected Taylor remainder is o(∥t∥2). Taking expectations then gives E0ft=2E0at−E0at2+o(∥t∥2)=−12tTIt+o(∥t∥2); the normalization term log⁡(1−αt) is o(∥t∥2).

2.2step 1.1algebra

The squared Hellinger distance H2(Pθ0+t,P0)=∫(pθ0+t−pθ0)2dμ equals 14tTIt+o(∥t∥2) by step 1.1. The affinity ρt=∫pθ0+tpθ0dμ=1−H2/2. On S0 let Y=pθ0+t/pθ0, so E0Y=ρt. For y>0, log⁡y≤log⁡ρt+(y−ρt)/ρt follows from z−1−log⁡z≥0 for z=y/ρt, since this function has derivative 1−1/z and its minimum is 0 at z=1; integrating gives P0ft=2E0log⁡Y≤2log⁡ρt. Since log⁡(1−x)≤−x for 0≤x<1 because −x−log⁡(1−x) has derivative x/(1−x)≥0 and value 0 at x=0. Thus 2log⁡ρt≤−H2, so for some c,δ>0, P0ft≤−c∥t∥2 whenever ∥t∥≤δ0.

3.1A3F3F4step 2.1construct

Let Gnf=n(Pnf−P0f) for the empirical measure Pn. The pointwise Lipschitz envelope gives ∥ft−fv∥L2(P0)≤∥L∥2∥t−v∥. The sample and mean processes are continuous in t on compact local balls, so their suprema equal suprema over countable dense subsets and are measurable. To bound the local supremum, take an independent ghost sample X1′,…,Xn′. For each fixed original sample, the supremum of absolute values is convex in the ghost sample vector, so Jensen's inequality replaces P0f by n−1∑if(Xi′) in the expected supremum. Swapping each pair (Xi,Xi′) with an independent sign and then using the triangle inequality bounds that supremum by twice the expected conditional Rademacher supremum. Condition on the observations for the latter. For the conditional Rademacher process Rn(f)=n−1/2∑iϵif(Xi), Hoeffding's exponential bound Eϵeλ(Rn(f)−Rn(g))=∏icosh⁡(λ(f−g)(Xi)/n)≤exp⁡{λ2Pn(f−g)2/2}, since log⁡cosh⁡u≤u2/2 (integrate tanh⁡u≤u for u≥0 and use evenness), makes each increment sub-Gaussian with variance proxy Pn(f−g)2≤PnL2∥t−v∥2. Choose successively finer dyadic Euclidean nets of the radius-r parameter ball. At level k the net has at most (C2k)d points, each increment from its level-(k−1) parent has scale at most Cr2−k(PnL2)1/2, and the expected maximum of N centered sub-Gaussian variables of scale σ is at most σ2log⁡(2N), by the exponential-moment bound and optimizing λ. Summing the resulting bounds uses the convergent series ∑k≥12−kk and gives Eϵsup⁡∥t∥≤r∣Rn(ft−f0)∣≤Cdr(PnL2)1/2. Symmetrization and E(PnL2)1/2≤(P0L2)1/2 therefore give Esup⁡∥t∥≤r∣Gn(ft−f0)∣≤Cdr∥L∥2. For rt=ft−tTsθ0, step 2.1 gives sup⁡∥t∥≤M/nP0rt2=o(n−1), and increments have the square-integrable pointwise envelope L+∥sθ0∥. Fix a mesh ε>0 and cover the bounded h-ball by finitely many mesh-ε points. At each center hj, the variance of nGnrhj/n is nVar⁡0(rhj/n)≤nP0rhj/n2=o(1), so Chebyshev and finiteness of the net make the maximum over centers oP(1). For increments within cells, form gh=rh/n−rhj/n, where hj is the center of the cell containing h. Each gh is pointwise bounded by ε(L+∥sθ0∥)/n. Apply conditional Rademacher chaining to the union of cell classes: at dyadic level k there are at most CMε−d2kd links, each with conditional scale at most Cε2−k(Pn(L+∥sθ0∥)2)1/2 after the n normalization. The exponential maximum bound and summation of ∑k≥02−klog⁡(CMε−d)+Cdk give an expected supremum at most CMεlog⁡(CM/ε) after symmetrization and E(Pn(L+∥sθ0∥)2)1/2≤∥L+∥sθ0∥∥2. Markov's inequality then shows that these cell increments vanish in probability as ε↓0. Letting n→∞ and then ε↓0 proves sup⁡∥h∥≤M∣nGnrh/n∣=oP(1). Thus, for each fixed M, uniformly over ∥h∥≤M, ℓn(θ0+h/n)−ℓn(θ0)=hTΔn−12hTIh+oP0(1),Δn=n−1/2∑i=1nsθ0(Xi). The expectation term is step 2.1; the centered term follows by writing ft=tTsθ0+(ft−tTsθ0) and using the two net bounds.

4.1A3F4F11step 3.1step 2.2algebra

Reduce δ0 if needed so the log envelope holds on the radius 2δ0 ball, and put δ=δ0/2. Consistency makes θ^n lie within δ of θ0 with probability tending to one. On the dyadic shells rj≤∥t∥≤2rj with rj=2jM/n, exact maximization and ℓn(θ^n)≥ℓn(θ0) require nsup⁡∥t∥≤2rj∣Gnft∣≥cnrj2. The expectation bound in step 3.1 and Markov's inequality [F11] bound the probability of this event by C/(nrj)=C/(2jM). Summing the geometric series and then letting M→∞ proves n(θ^n−θ0)=OP0(1) using [F4]. The argument used only consistency, feasibility of θ0, and the maximizing inequality; it therefore proves the same bound for any exact maximizer over a subset containing θ0.

5.1A3F4F5F7step 3.1step 4.1algebra

Put h^n=n(θ^n−θ0) and hn∗=I−1Δn. The multivariate CLT [F7] and [F5] make hn∗=OP0(1); step 4.1 makes h^n=OP0(1). For Qn(h)=hTΔn−12hTIh, Qn(hn∗)−Qn(h)=12(h−hn∗)TI(h−hn∗)≥12λmin⁡(I)∥h−hn∗∥2. Uniform convergence on bounded balls in step 3.1, feasibility of bounded local h because θ0 is interior, and exact MLE maximization therefore force h^n−hn∗=oP0(1).

6.1A1A2F4F6F7F8step 5.1∎

The CLT [F7] gives Δn⇒Nd(0,I); the limiting law exists by [F8]. Since I is invertible, hn∗=I−1Δn⇒Nd(0,I−1) by the continuous linear map. Combining this with step 5.1 by [F6] proves both the asymptotic linear representation and the stated normal limit. AC is used only through [F7]–[F8].

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

63 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources